Judge Blocks Postal Service Restrictions on Mail-In Ballots
A federal judge has ruled against proposed restrictions on mail-in voting. The decision follows a legal settlement from 2021. (sources: aljazeera, nytimes, theguardian)
The ruling prevents the Postal Service from imposing new limits on mail-in ballots, marking a setback for efforts to restrict mail voting. This is the second time a judge has blocked such measures.
- The ruling was made by Judge Emmet Sullivan.
- The decision is based on agreements from a 2021 legal settlement.
- The ruling is part of ongoing legal challenges to restrictions on mail-in voting.
Why it matters
The ruling impacts the ongoing debate over mail-in voting practices in the United States.
↓ Congress can act on this
8 bills on this issue are moving right now — and the most active one is HR7265: Vote by Mail Tracking Act.
HR7265 · 119th Congress
Vote by Mail Tracking Act
Where do you stand on this bill?
Takes about 60 seconds
About this bill
What HR7265 actually does
This story is about US judge sides with NAACP over proposed mail-in ballot restrictions. This bill would require ballot envelopes sent through the mail to carry a USPS barcode that enables tracking of each ballot.
If passed, it would:
- require ballot envelopes sent through the mail to carry a USPS barcode that enables tracking of each ballot • require ballot-envelope design standards and the Official Election Mail logo.
7 other bills moving on this issue
Take action on any of them individually.
This story is about US judge sides with NAACP over proposed mail-in ballot restrictions. This bill would require same-day processing of ballots, ballot tracking/barcodes, and postmarks on mailed ballots.
If passed, it would
- require same-day processing of ballots, ballot tracking/barcodes, and postmarks on mailed ballots • require USPS to carry election mail as first-class, carry completed ballots free of postage.
This story is about US judge sides with NAACP over proposed mail-in ballot restrictions. This bill would reestablish preclearance for covered voting changes before they take effect.
If passed, it would
- reestablish preclearance for covered voting changes before they take effect • require more public notice and support stronger DOJ and court review of voting-rights changes.